Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[MiserereNobis]

Perhaps you might consider that the prophets speaking for God is by far the secondary stuff, and the exercise of the keys is by far the primary stuff. For example, are you convinced that your baptism is acceptable to God, that your partaking the Sacrament is also, and that you have received the Holy Ghost from Him? Are you convinced that you have been endowed with power by virtue of your temple ordinances, and that your family relationships are sealed on earth and in heaven?

 

And if not convinced, at least satisfied or happily/optimistically hopeful?

 

This is where the Catholic Church tends to put the focus: the Apostolic Succession.  We know we've had terrible clergy, Popes included (though the Borgias sure did decorate the Vatican nicely!).  But the point is that all of our Sacraments (ordinances, in Mormon terminology) are valid, so even if we have a terrible Pope we know that our baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, etc, are all still fine.

 

When I have been challenged by protestants on the abuses of some Popes, I usually respond with "yeah, it happened, it shouldn't have.  Next?"  I don't think we are hung up on the need for perfection from our leaders, so it tends to deflate the criticism and the faith crises surrounding leadership.

[wenglund]

Thanks for getting the point of the question (I guess we share snark-to-snark telepathy).  As for your question, why stay LDS but rather seek out "like-minded faith traditions"?

 

Believe it or not, this is the most like-minded faith traditions that I have found ... SO FAR.  Do I think it is perfect?  Of course not.  Nor did I think that the other denominations I've joined -- Baptists, AME or CME (Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter) -- were perfect.  Nor do I think that my wife is perfect (unless she happens to be standing over my shoulder at this very moment, and then I'm kidding, Baby Cakes).  Nor do I think my children are perfect.  And so on and so on.

 

The idea that I must belong to a perfect organization is strange to me and not even logically consistent.  How could this Church have been perfect BEFORE I joined?  And how could it be perfect now when the vast majority of God's (second favorite) children are not part of "His church"?  One of the beautiful things about our Church is that it is built on the premise that we don't know everything YET and that we have prophets, seers and revelators to bring us greater light and knowledge, which we will presumably act upon to become more and more like the Savior for whom our church is named.  Imperfection is baked into the cake of Mormonism.

 

But I agree that it would be an easier journey if I had greater confidence that we were "on the right track."  So, perhaps you could share what gives you such confidence that we are getting all of the prophesies, revelations and whatever it is that seers see, that we need.

 

I am not sure where you are getting the notion of "perfect" from my simple, non-binary question (I had nothing of the sort in mind, which explains why the word "perfect" appears nowhere in my comment and question--so much for shared telepathy ), but your reading clearly misses my point.

 

To reiterate, and later respond to your request, my point was in regards to comparative (arrayed along a spectrum) levels of faith and trust in Church leaders as opposed to ourselves and popular culture, particularly in determining what is right and best as well as the will of God.

 

Those members, such as yourself (to some extent), who tend to lean more on your own understanding and on the understanding of the world, more so than on the understanding of the leaders of the Church, will be more inclined to steady the ark, so to speak, and take positions on certain issues that are in line with your own mind and the will of the world and contrary to the leaders, in hopes of effecting change in the Church and make it better fit the world.

 

Whereas, members like myself, who tend to lean more on the leaders than ourselves and popular culture, will be less inclined to steady the ark, and will tend to take positions that are in line with the leaders, trusting that they are being guided by God (not just in terms of receiving further light and knowledge in the future, but also in administering God's will today and in the past), and that God is ultimately in charge of his kingdom on earth as in heaven..

 

To me, the confidence, or lack thereof, in Church leaders, is a function of humility vs. pride. Simple as that.

 

And, as I see things, the key value of the Church is its claimed foundation of later-day prophets and apostle--with Christ as the corner stone, without which it is little different from other faith traditions. So, for those members that place themselves and the world at their own religious foundation, then I am not sure what value, beyond social and to some extent doctrinal, the Church provides for them, let alone whether they are affectively in the Church/gospel or in some other related faith tradition with their own respective foundations?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

This is where the Catholic Church tends to put the focus: the Apostolic Succession.  We know we've had terrible clergy, Popes included (though the Borgias sure did decorate the Vatican nicely!).  But the point is that all of our Sacraments (ordinances, in Mormon terminology) are valid, so even if we have a terrible Pope we know that our baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, etc, are all still fine.

 

When I have been challenged by protestants on the abuses of some Popes, I usually respond with "yeah, it happened, it shouldn't have.  Next?"  I don't think we are hung up on the need for perfection from our leaders, so it tends to deflate the criticism and the faith crises surrounding leadership.

Well the Mormon response to this would be that if a priesthood holder is unrighteous he loses his authority.

 

But the problem is that we have teenage boys blessing the sacrament by assignment, having done who knows what on Saturday night.  We make up stories about why that doesn't matter.

 

So the.bottom line for me is that there is little practical difference on this point even though we rationalize away the problem differently.

[mormonnewb]

I am not sure where you are getting the notion of "perfect" from my simple, non-binary question (I had nothing of the sort in mind, which explains why the word "perfect" appears nowhere in my comment and question--so much for shared telepathy ), but your reading clearly misses my point.

 

To reiterate, and later respond to your request, my point was in regards to comparative (arrayed along a spectrum) levels of faith and trust in Church leaders as opposed to ourselves and popular culture, particularly in determining what is right and best as well as the will of God.

 

Those members, such as yourself (to some extent), who tend to lean more on your own understanding and on the understanding of the world, more so than on the understanding of the leaders of the Church, will be more inclined to steady the ark, so to speak, and take positions on certain issues that are in line with your own mind and the will of the world and contrary to the leaders, in hopes of effecting change in the Church and make it better fit the world.

 

Whereas, members like myself, who tend to lean more on the leaders than ourselves and popular culture, will be less inclined to steady the ark, and will tend to take positions that are in line with the leaders, trusting that they are being guided by God (not just in terms of receiving further light and knowledge in the future, but also in administering God's will today and in the past), and that God is ultimately in charge of his kingdom on earth as in heaven..

 

To me, the confidence, or lack thereof, in Church leaders, is a function of humility vs. pride. Simple as that.

 

And, as I see things, the key value of the Church is its claimed foundation of later-day prophets and apostle--with Christ as the corner stone, without which it is little different from other faith traditions. So, for those members that place themselves and the world at their own religious foundation, then I am not sure what value, beyond social and to some extent doctrinal, the Church provides for them, let alone whether they are affectively in the Church/gospel or in some other related faith tradition with their own respective foundations?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Let's try this again.  There is NO Church that matches up perfectly with my views.  There could only be one such church -- The Church of Mormonnewb -- and it would only have one member (ME) -- and that member would be on the verge of apostasy about half of the time.

 

So yes, there are a few churches that share my stance on SSM or some other issues, but those churches take different stances on other issues.  On balance, TO DATE, this Church has the best teachings and practices that I have encountered.

 

The only difference between you and I comes down to "ark steadying."  You seem to take the approach that the Church is where God wants it to be at this point in time and that it is in the Lord's timing to make whatever changes/improvements He desires.  This takes us back to my original question as to how you know that our leaders are in tune with what the Lord wants, whether they are truly PSRs.  You are obviously convinced that they are while I'm not so sure.

 

And this isn't just an issue of skepticism on my part.  I ties back to our view of how revelation occurs.  As I understand, we believe that revelation comes from studying things out in our minds and then going to HF for confirmation.  This means that the impetus for receiving revelation rests with the Brethren themselves.  If they aren't seeking revelation on a particular matter, then they won't receive revelation, regardless of HF's will about the matter.  Therefore, some of us see that we have a duty to sustain our leaders by suggesting areas in which to seek revelation, such as, say, the ordination of women.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well the Mormon response to this would be that if a priesthood holder is unrighteous he loses his authority.

 

But the problem is that we have teenage boys blessing the sacrament by assignment, having done who knows what on Saturday night.  We make up stories about why that doesn't matter.

We shouldn't state directly or imply through stories or other means that it doesn't matter. Of course it does.

 

The real question though, is whether the unworthiness of one officiating makes the ordinance invalid.

 

I just came from another thread where halconero addressed this. I thought he stated it pretty well:

 

As for personal worthiness, if an unrighteous priesthood holder or leader is authorized to perform sacraments, either out of ignorance of the sin or even rebellion, these sacraments are recognized. The priesthood holder is bringing damnation upon themselves, but any blessings or ordinances performed are still valid.

 

Edited April 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Let's try this again.  There is NO Church that matches up perfectly with my views.  There could only be one such church -- The Church of Mormonnewb -- and it would only have one member (ME) -- and that member would be on the verge of apostasy about half of the time.

 

So yes, there are a few churches that share my stance on SSM or some other issues, but those churches take different stances on other issues.  On balance, TO DATE, this Church has the best teachings and practices that I have encountered.

 

The only difference between you and I comes down to "ark steadying."  You seem to take the approach that the Church is where God wants it to be at this point in time and that it is in the Lord's timing to make whatever changes/improvements He desires.  This takes us back to my original question as to how you know that our leaders are in tune with what the Lord wants, whether they are truly PSRs.  You are obviously convinced that they are while I'm not so sure.

 

And this isn't just an issue of skepticism on my part.  I ties back to our view of how revelation occurs.  As I understand, we believe that revelation comes from studying things out in our minds and then going to HF for confirmation.  This means that the impetus for receiving revelation rests with the Brethren themselves.  If they aren't seeking revelation on a particular matter, then they won't receive revelation, regardless of HF's will about the matter.  Therefore, some of us see that we have a duty to sustain our leaders by suggesting areas in which to seek revelation, such as, say, the ordination of women.

 

Whether you realize it or not, your claim about it tying back into our differing view of how revelation occurs (I am of a mind that there are various ways in which revelation occurs, and not just the one you proposed), inadvertently underscores my point about comparative trust/faith. Look at who you are placing trust/faith in for providing the impetus for revelation--that's right, you are putting your faith and trust in yourself and others who share your worldly views, rather than in God or others of his chosen leaders.

 

Even more to the point, your assumed impetus trustingly presupposes that the prompted revelation will comport with your worldly view.

 

In other words, it is a good thing that God has you and other more enlightened members around to prod his daft leaders into seeking the revelation that will move the Church towards where you more enlightened members have already risen to. No pride there. LOL

 

One wonders why God didn't just call the presumably more enlightened members like yourself to lead the Church? That way God wouldn't have to rely on busy-body and skeptical and complainant members to provide impetus to revelations since you all would already know what is best beforehand. After all, popular culture can't be wrong.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

So if I become a prophet in my own right, then why would I need the counsel of "co-prophets?" And certainly, why would I defer to them?

Because they have the keys, and it can help you to know that even if you know the same things they know.

Knowledge is not a viable substitute for authority.

[Ahab]

The Lochness Monster is real but that doesn't help you at all if you don't accept her as such.

Not convinced? O Ye of little faith!

I'm not asking for conclusive PROOF. That's not possible. I simply want to know how many of you fill in the blank when you say, "I know that the Brethren are truly prophets, seers and revelators because ___________."

God has told me they are.

[Ahab]

Does no one here know how a new prophet is called?

Seriously?

I think you mean a new President, also known as the presiding high priest.

But it's pretty much the same way for any prophet, I suppose. Revelation from God is received.

[Ahab]

Well, honestly part of the purpose of my post that you responded to is to elaborate on the idea that the LDS idea of modern-day revelation and modern-day prophets is not as unique as some believe it is. In practice (except for Joseph Smith), the LDS church and the Catholic Church seem to be very similar when it comes to the ideas of the leadership being led by God. When Mormons say that their church is the only one that claims to have prophets and modern-day revelation, I believe (from what I've seen here) the claim is based on semantics and not on the actuality of the situation. If we change terminology, the Catholic Church and Mormons are basically saying the same thing about their leadership.

ETA: When (knowledgable) Catholics say that the Pope is not a prophet and that he does not receive revelation, they are using those words with specific Catholic definitions. Again, the practicalities of the LDS prophet and the Catholic Pope seem very very similar. So, as I said in a previous post, perhaps Mormons shouldn't say that theirs is the only church that claims modern-day revelation, but should instead focus on the claim that Mormon revelation is more authentic (?) because of authority and apostasy.

The way Catholics think about the position of their pope is more analagous to the way we LDS think about the position of our presiding bishop, rather than the presiding high priest of our Church.

I've often wondered what would have happened if Catholics just realized some new apostles were being called in our dispensation while they still accepted their pope as the presiding bishop. There would still have been some other problems to sort out but I think that would still have been a good starting point. Catholics just need to learn why they still need apostles to correct any false teachings.

[CV75]

This is where the Catholic Church tends to put the focus: the Apostolic Succession.

 

 

Well the Mormon response to this would be that if a priesthood holder is unrighteous he loses his authority.

 

But the problem is that we have teenage boys blessing the sacrament by assignment, having done who knows what on Saturday night.  We make up stories about why that doesn't matter.

 

So the.bottom line for me is that there is little practical difference on this point even though we rationalize away the problem differently.

The "story" I go by is: the faithful recipient of the priesthood ordinance doesn’t lose his/her power and authority to receive the intended blessings (D&C 84:36-38), even if the unworthy priesthood holder has broken his oath and covenant (D&C 84:39-41).

The D&C 121 verses read, “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man,” which results in his being “left unto himself.” He is the only one ultimately disadvantaged by his unworthiness, not those to whom he has extended the ordinances. To me, this is a form of grace despite the mechanics of who actually has or hasn't the priesthood authority, and for which purposse/context.

D&C 84:19-21 shows the relationship between the ordinances, the power of godliness, authority and priesthood. “And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of …the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh…”

The link between the verses in D&C 84 and 121 is in receiving the Lord’s servants to receive Him, the Father and the blessings. We receive them all by receiving the teachings, covenants and ordinances, and by exercising righteous dominion (primarily over ourselves). We “come unto this priesthood” either by receiving in faith what the Lord offers through it, and/or by abiding by the oath and covenant we take upon ourselves with its conferral, regardless of whether anyone else isn’t worthy to exercise it in a manner the Lord expects of him.

Unfortunately, there can be no faith (power) in the priesthood when one or more of the elements from D&C 84:12 doesn’t exist on the Earth. So there has to be at least an extant priesthood to permit the relationship between the faithful and the ordinances, the power of godliness and the authority; hence the Restoration!

Edited April 15, 2014 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

We shouldn't state directly or imply through stories or other means that it doesn't matter. Of course it does.

 

The real question though, is whether the unworthiness of one officiating makes the ordinance invalid.

 

I just came from another thread where halconero addressed this. I thought he stated it pretty well:

As for personal worthiness, if an unrighteous priesthood holder or leader is authorized to perform sacraments, either out of ignorance of the sin or even rebellion, these sacraments are recognized. The priesthood holder is bringing damnation upon themselves, but any blessings or ordinances performed are still valid.

Well that quote works well for me too, but on the other hand that is exactly why Catholics think they still hold the keys of Peter.

If we acknowledge halconero's point we should honor theirs as well

Edited April 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Well that quote works well for me too, but on the other hand that is exactly why Catholics think they still hold the keys of Peter.

If we acknowledge halconero's point we should honor theirs as well

I don't think their reasoning is bad, though I may disagree with their conclusion.

[MiserereNobis]

The way Catholics think about the position of their pope is more analagous to the way we LDS think about the position of our presiding bishop, rather than the presiding high priest of our Church.

 

 

I admittedly don't know too much about the LDS presiding bishop, other than what I've heard here and there and what I just read on Wikipedia, but based on that the Pope is really nothing like the LDS presiding bishop.  The presiding bishop is in charge of temporal affairs, right?  It said on Wikipedia that he is in charge of buildings, properties, businesses, and is part of a council that deals with tithing.

 

Now, the Pope has absolute and universal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, so in that way he is also in charge of the temporal affairs.  Whatever he says temporally is what goes.  So, in that way he is similar.  HOWEVER, that is not his sole nor primary function.  He is the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ.  Perhaps you could reread some of my posts earlier on this thread because I don't want to keep repeating myself, but I'll sum up by saying his responsibility is to keep the deposit of Faith intact and to pass it on fully.  He holds the Keys of Peter.  What he seals on earth is sealed in heaven.  He has unrestricted jurisdiction, which means that wherever he goes he is in charge.  He presides over all of the earth, over all Christendom.  Now, part of the problem is terminology.  An LDS bishop is not the same as a Catholic bishop.  So yes, the Pope is the bishop of Rome, but bishops in our Church are successors to the Apostles, not leaders of a specific congregation.  Now, obviously you disagree with this (or you would be Catholic, ha), but I'm pointing it out to show that a Catholic bishop is not like an LDS bishop, so don't let the term confuse you.  The Pope is, to use the LDS terminology, the presiding high priest.  He holds all the keys, all the authority.  We definitely don't look at him like you look at the presiding bishop.  We look at him like you look at the president of the church (admitting differences, of course).

 

 

Catholics just need to learn why they still need apostles to correct any false teachings.

 

See, here is where terminology is creating an issue.  One of the purposes of the Pope and of the College of Bishops in communion with him is to correct false teaching.  Of the 21 Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Catholic Church, 20 were convened to repudiate false teachings.  An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of the Bishops of Catholicism under the direction of the Pope.  Think of it as the LDS quorum of the 12 meeting under the direction of the first presidency to make an official declaration as to doctrine (truth vs. error) and you'll see that your statement is incorrect.  Our bishops ARE our apostles.  We don't call them Apostles because that term refers to those who were called and sent forth by Christ at the time of Christ, but their priesthood authority (to use the LDS term) is the same.   You may disagree (obviously), but I want you to disagree from a point of view of knowing what we believe and how we perceive our hierarchy.

Edited April 15, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

I don't think their reasoning is bad, though I may disagree with their conclusion.

That's about the way I see it as well. Which church is "true" is a matter of testimony only, ultimately anyway. History isn't a big help to either church, except they have more of a "past" to deal with than we do.

Of course as always, that's debatable.

[mfbukowski]

The way Catholics think about the position of their pope is more analagous to the way we LDS think about the position of our presiding bishop, rather than the presiding high priest of our Church.

I've often wondered what would have happened if Catholics just realized some new apostles were being called in our dispensation while they still accepted their pope as the presiding bishop. There would still have been some other problems to sort out but I think that would still have been a good starting point. Catholics just need to learn why they still need apostles to correct any false teachings.

Nah, the presiding Bishop for LDS is mostly in charge of temporal stuff. Picking out temple sites, making sure relief efforts are working, doing welfare stuff. (those are all technical terms of course...)

The Pope is seen as the direct mouthpiece of God- as one who is in direct communication with God on "a daily basis".

I think we see the President almost exactly as Catholics see the Pope, except our pope lives in Salt Lake instead of Rome, and doesn't wear all those funny robes, well not at least on the street.

[mfbukowski]

I admittedly don't know too much about the LDS presiding bishop, other than what I've heard here and there and what I just read on Wikipedia, but based on that the Pope is really nothing like the LDS presiding bishop.  The presiding bishop is in charge of temporal affairs, right?  It said on Wikipedia that he is in charge of buildings, properties, businesses, and is part of a council that deals with tithing.

 

Now, the Pope has absolute and universal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, so in that way he is also in charge of the temporal affairs.  Whatever he says temporally is what goes.  So, in that way he is similar.  HOWEVER, that is not his sole nor primary function.  He is the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ.  Perhaps you could reread some of my posts earlier on this thread because I don't want to keep repeating myself, but I'll sum up by saying his responsibility is to keep the deposit of Faith intact and to pass it on fully.  He holds the Keys of Peter.  What he seals on earth is sealed in heaven.  He has unrestricted jurisdiction, which means that wherever he goes he is in charge.  He presides over all of the earth, over all Christendom.  Now, part of the problem is terminology.  An LDS bishop is not the same as a Catholic bishop.  So yes, the Pope is the bishop of Rome, but bishops in our Church are successors to the Apostles, not leaders of a specific congregation.  Now, obviously you disagree with this (or you would be Catholic, ha), but I'm pointing it out to show that a Catholic bishop is not like an LDS bishop, so don't let the term confuse you.  The Pope is, to use the LDS terminology, the presiding high priest.  He holds all the keys, all the authority.  We definitely don't look at him like you look at the presiding bishop.  We look at him like you look at the president of the church (admitting differences, of course).

 

 

 

See, here is where terminology is creating an issue.  One of the purposes of the Pope and of the College of Bishops in communion with him is to correct false teaching.  Of the 21 Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Catholic Church, 20 were convened to repudiate false teachings.  An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of the Bishops of Catholicism under the direction of the Pope.  Think of it as the LDS quorum of the 12 meeting under the direction of the first presidency to make an official declaration as to doctrine (truth vs. error) and you'll see that your statement is incorrect.  Our bishops ARE our apostles.  We don't call them Apostles because that term refers to those who were called and sent forth by Christ at the time of Christ, but their priesthood authority (to use the LDS term) is the same.   You may disagree (obviously), but I want you to disagree from a point of view of knowing what we believe and how we perceive our hierarchy.

Yep- I agree. You got the LDS side of the equation correct. But it's been a long time since I was Catholic.

[CV75]

That's about the way I see it as well. Which church is "true" is a matter of testimony only, ultimately anyway.

Otherwise our life here wouldn't be much of a test!

[Tacenda]

You totally misunderstood. The whole point of my posting on this thread is to say that the definitions that Mormons and Catholics use for "revelation" is different and, in practical terms, we act the same way, as if God is leading our Churches. Please go back and reread my posts, especially the one you responded to. Catholics believe that God is always speaking to His Church. We just don't call it revelation.

Actually, your response is one of the reasons I posted the things I did. Mormons appear to misunderstand the Catholic Church's take on revelation and think that we believe that God will never speak to the world again. That is SO not true. In fact, I dare say (given the amount of time and the number of Catholics), we have WAY more visions and whatnot in our history than in the LDS history. There are countless Saints and others who have had visions of angles and Jesus and Mary and other Saints. Add to that our 21 Ecumenical Councils and countless Papal encyclicals and you can see that we are a Church that very much believes that God is leading us through what Mormons would call revelation.

You really need to listen to the most recent podcast on Mormon Discussions Podbean by DBMormon. He has on a Catholic Apologist, and they discuss a lot of what's been said here. Very interesting..

[why me]

One problem with the internet is that people can post like they are experts on their church teachings. We can find this on all board When I posting on the catholic board I discovered that many of the catholics on that board would post as if they were experts on catholic teaching. But of course many weren't. Likewise for Mormon boards. So, at the end of the day, we just read posts from people in hope that they are right. But since everyone has an opinion about what their faiths believe, we must take everything with  a grain of salt and hope that we are not more confused than before.

[Ahab]

I admittedly don't know too much about the LDS presiding bishop, other than what I've heard here and there and what I just read on Wikipedia, but based on that the Pope is really nothing like the LDS presiding bishop. The presiding bishop is in charge of temporal affairs, right? It said on Wikipedia that he is in charge of buildings, properties, businesses, and is part of a council that deals with tithing.

Now, the Pope has absolute and universal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, so in that way he is also in charge of the temporal affairs. Whatever he says temporally is what goes. So, in that way he is similar. HOWEVER, that is not his sole nor primary function. He is the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ. Perhaps you could reread some of my posts earlier on this thread because I don't want to keep repeating myself, but I'll sum up by saying his responsibility is to keep the deposit of Faith intact and to pass it on fully. He holds the Keys of Peter. What he seals on earth is sealed in heaven. He has unrestricted jurisdiction, which means that wherever he goes he is in charge. He presides over all of the earth, over all Christendom. Now, part of the problem is terminology. An LDS bishop is not the same as a Catholic bishop. So yes, the Pope is the bishop of Rome, but bishops in our Church are successors to the Apostles, not leaders of a specific congregation. Now, obviously you disagree with this (or you would be Catholic, ha), but I'm pointing it out to show that a Catholic bishop is not like an LDS bishop, so don't let the term confuse you. The Pope is, to use the LDS terminology, the presiding high priest. He holds all the keys, all the authority. We definitely don't look at him like you look at the presiding bishop. We look at him like you look at the president of the church (admitting differences, of course).

See, here is where terminology is creating an issue. One of the purposes of the Pope and of the College of Bishops in communion with him is to correct false teaching. Of the 21 Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Catholic Church, 20 were convened to repudiate false teachings. An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of the Bishops of Catholicism under the direction of the Pope. Think of it as the LDS quorum of the 12 meeting under the direction of the first presidency to make an official declaration as to doctrine (truth vs. error) and you'll see that your statement is incorrect. Our bishops ARE our apostles. We don't call them Apostles because that term refers to those who were called and sent forth by Christ at the time of Christ, but their priesthood authority (to use the LDS term) is the same. You may disagree (obviously), but I want you to disagree from a point of view of knowing what we believe and how we perceive our hierarchy.

I was talking about how the Catholic claim that Clement was ordained and given the keys by Peter to be the bishop of Jerusalem, which was at that time supposedly where the church was headquartered, is what we LDS would regard as Peter giving Clement the position we call the Presiding Bishop of the Church.

We, LDS, know the difference between an apostle and a bishop, and we also know that Peter was never ordained to be a bishop over any city, or even over the entire world. Unlike most leaders in the Church today, including President Monson, Peter didn't "rise through the ranks" by first being ordained a bishop and then later an apostle. And bishops back then, even the Presiding Bishop over all of the Church, were still subject to the apostles.

Catholics make the mistake of thinking bishops are the equivalent of apostles, but they never were, and they never will be.

[Ahab]

Nah, the presiding Bishop for LDS is mostly in charge of temporal stuff. Picking out temple sites, making sure relief efforts are working, doing welfare stuff. (those are all technical terms of course...)

The Pope is seen as the direct mouthpiece of God- as one who is in direct communication with God on "a daily basis".

I think we see the President almost exactly as Catholics see the Pope, except our pope lives in Salt Lake instead of Rome, and doesn't wear all those funny robes, well not at least on the street.

Two thoughts are at work in your mind here:

1: You don't realize how a Presiding Bishop of the Church would be influenced and appear to others if at some point there ceased to be any living (mortal) apostles and he also didn't think any more were necessary.

2. You don't realize our pope is our Presiding Bishop and that he is not the President of our Church.

[MiserereNobis]

I was talking about how the Catholic claim that Clement was ordained and given the keys by Peter to be the bishop of Jerusalem, which was at that time supposedly where the church was headquartered, is what we LDS would regard as Peter giving Clement the position we call the Presiding Bishop of the Church.

We, LDS, know the difference between an apostle and a bishop, and we also know that Peter was never ordained to be a bishop over any city, or even over the entire world. Unlike most leaders in the Church today, including President Monson, Peter didn't "rise through the ranks" by first being ordained a bishop and then later an apostle. And bishops back then, even the Presiding Bishop over all of the Church, were still subject to the apostles.

Catholics make the mistake of thinking bishops are the equivalent of apostles, but they never were, and they never will be.

 

Well, obviously we disagree on whether or not Catholic bishops are the successors to the Apostles.  If we didn't disagree, we'd be in the same Church   But I what I'm trying to point out is that you do not understand the Catholic position.  You can disagree, of course, but at least know what you are disagreeing with.  We don't view the Pope as the same as the LDS presiding bishop.  Not even close.  And we don't think that Peter "rose through the ranks."  He was given the Keys directly from Jesus Christ, which gave him the primacy and supremacy which he passed on to his successors.  That's the Catholic belief.  Disagree, of course, but at least don't distort it.

 

 

2. You don't realize our pope is our Presiding Bishop and that he is not the President of our Church.

 

I'm not sure what you mean that the LDS pope is theLDS  presiding bishop.  It really doesn't make any sense to me, because the LDS presiding bishop is nothing like the Catholic Pope, and the LDS church doesn't claim to have a pope, so... what exactly are you trying to say here?

[Ahab]

What I'm trying to point out is that you do not understand the Catholic position. You can disagree, of course, but at least know what you are disagreeing with.

The Catholic position is that the pope is the presiding bishop of Rome, or more particularly a "set apart" (as in holy) part of Rome called the Vatican, and that since the headquarters of the Catholic church is in Rome, the pope presides over not just Rome but also the whole world since the headquarters of the Catholic church is in Rome and Catholics believe God presides over the whole world through their church headquarters.

You may not find the idea expressed by someone else in exactly those words, but that is the same idea most Catholics will share with anyone who wants to know what they believe, even if you are an exception.

We don't view the Pope as the same as the LDS presiding bishop. Not even close.

The "not even close" part is what tells me you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not even saying it is an exact match. But at least both of them are bishops and not an apostle.

And we don't think that Peter "rose through the ranks."

This just shows me you didn't realize I said that.

He was given the Keys directly from Jesus Christ, which gave him the primacy and supremacy which he passed on to his successors.

Peter didn't ordain Clement as an apostle,.though. Clement was only a bishop and the keys Peter gave him were only for that bishopric, in Jerusalem. You may think otherwise but that's what makes the pope more like a Presiding Bishop than like the Presiding High Priest.

I'm not sure what you mean that the LDS pope is theLDS presiding bishop. It really doesn't make any sense to me, because the LDS presiding bishop is nothing like the Catholic Pope, and the LDS church doesn't claim to have a pope, so... what exactly are you trying to say here?

Let me know if you still don't understand me.

[Ran]

I was talking about how the Catholic claim that Clement was ordained and given the keys by Peter to be the bishop of Jerusalem, which was at that time supposedly where the church was headquartered, is what we LDS would regard as Peter giving Clement the position we call the Presiding Bishop of the Church.

We, LDS, know the difference between an apostle and a bishop, and we also know that Peter was never ordained to be a bishop over any city, or even over the entire world. Unlike most leaders in the Church today, including President Monson, Peter didn't "rise through the ranks" by first being ordained a bishop and then later an apostle. And bishops back then, even the Presiding Bishop over all of the Church, were still subject to the apostles.

Catholics make the mistake of thinking bishops are the equivalent of apostles, but they never were, and they never will be.

 

 

Catholics affirm that the aspect of being chosen witnesses of the Resurrected Christ that pertains to the office of the Twelve is not transmitted to the bishops, and so in that sense Catholics do not mistake bishops as being equivalent to the Apostles.

Catholics do, however, find an association between the Apostles and bishops in Acts 1:20, where Judas' departure leaves vacant an ἐπισκοπή (episcope) — an office of oversight or episcopacy ("bishoprick") — which Matthias fills.

 

The presence of bishops in the New Testament suggests that this ἐπισκοπή was transmitted to co-laborers of the Twelve in their evangelical mission. These men, though not chosen witnesses of the Resurrected Christ, served as episcopal successors to the Apostles after their departure.

 

It would be interesting to examine the development in Catholic theology of the ἐπισκοπή from it being "universal" with regards to the Twelve to it being "particular" (tied to a specific geographic region like a city) with regards to the bishops.

 

What's further interesting is that Christ is described as being ἐπίσκοπος (episcopos) — Bishop — in 1 Peter 2:25, from which one could derive further associations linking Christ with the Twelve and the bishops in the enduring mission of proclaiming the Gospel.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ran